Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

New player getting into nids now and i was just wondering if my statement is correct on hive guard.

It only allows them to shoot through cover but it does not ignore cover saves correct?

Meaning that things such as jetbikes still would get their jink saves.

Tyranids FAQ
'Q: Can a model take a cover save from the Jink special rule against
shooting attacks made by Hive Guard impaler cannons? (p47)
A: No.'

Also read the passage under the impaler cannon profile on p47 of the Tyranid codex.

So you are partially incorrect,

The impaler cannon is kinda wonky with cover saves. The model must be in terrain our touching terrain, and the terrain must be between the model and the hive guard.

Would shrouded have an effect on a unit touching a terrain piece ?

Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other than the terrain they are in, or touching, against Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No.

I would say actually say yes, as the passage states 'only counts the benefit of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the hive guard'. But the Shrouded special rule is a 'cover save bonus' BRB p41, not a cover save by itself so the Hive guard would not ignore it.
IMHO The FAQ quoted to refers to a target in open ground, so they don't get a cover save according to the impaler cannon rule. But if in terrain the get the save so the bonuses apply

As long as it is modifying an existing, terrain provided cover save, then yes Shrouded / Stealth will work.

As above. Stealth/Shrouded will not provide any save against an Impaler Cannon on their own, but if the model is benefitting from a cover save that the Impaler Cannon does not bypass (being in or touching terrain between the target and the firer), then Stealth or Shrouded can enhance that save.

They just need to errata it to say Ignores Cover. That would solve all the strange issues with Impaler Cannon

Fragile wrote:
They just need to errata it to say Ignores Cover. That would solve all the strange issues with Impaler Cannon

Except the fact that you're not allowed to allocate wounds from an Impaler cannon that is fired from out of LOS. That would still be a glaring issue.

 puma713 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
They just need to errata it to say Ignores Cover. That would solve all the strange issues with Impaler Cannon

Except the fact that you're not allowed to allocate wounds from an Impaler cannon that is fired from out of LOS. That would still be a glaring issue.

Thats a debatable point, as they are given permission by rule, but its slightly off topic to the cover saves. Things like stealth really complicate the issue. Stealth gives you a 6+ cover save in the open terrain. So by Cannon rules they are in open terrain which gives a 6+ cover save. But Stealth is a USR, which by FAQ seems like it would be ignored... so it can be very argumentative.

It's not a debatable point - you have permission to hit a unit out of LOS but no permission to wound that unit nor to allocate wounds.

Go dig up that other thread You have permission to do the shooting sequence against targets that are out of LOS. That process includes allocating wounds.

And nothing overrides page 16, out of sight. There is no debate on it - strictly you cannot use their special allowance, as you have no permission to allocate wounds. You in fact have permission explicitly denied

So what would the logic be on being able to fire at something but not being able to wound it? That makes 0 sense. Also there are many special instances, thanks to a not specific update of the codex's, in which wounds, such as the Doom of Malantai, have to allocate wounds without LOS.

Doom isnt classed as a shooting attack though, even though cover saves can be taken.

Yeah i knwo its not a shooting attack im just saying theres no way to allocate wounds for it in the rulebook yet your sure as hell not going to disregard them either. Same instance as HG imo

Bloodynecronight wrote:
So what would the logic be on being able to fire at something but not being able to wound it? That makes 0 sense. Also there are many special instances, thanks to a not specific update of the codex's, in which wounds, such as the Doom of Malantai, have to allocate wounds without LOS.

Rules are not always logical. Welcome to GWs rules writing.

Bloodynecronight wrote:
So what would the logic be on being able to fire at something but not being able to wound it? That makes 0 sense. Also there are many special instances, thanks to a not specific update of the codex's, in which wounds, such as the Doom of Malantai, have to allocate wounds without LOS.

Because it was a big change to the rules (back to semi 4th edition, barring range sniping) when they moved to LOS restrictions on allocation in 6th ed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And nothing overrides page 16, out of sight. There is no debate on it - strictly you cannot use their special allowance, as you have no permission to allocate wounds. You in fact have permission explicitly denied

Specific over general. Codex allows you to shoot "regardless of line of sight". In order to "shoot" you follow the sequence on page 12, which includes allocating wounds "regardless of LOS."

Show where it can specifically allocate wounds. The wounds "allocate wounds regardless of LOS" or similar.

Otherwise you do not have anything specific

Impaler Cannon: ""The impaler cannon can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not.""

"can shoot". What does that mean in 6th? Page 12 gives that answer.

""The shooting process can be summarised in five steps, as described below""

""Once you have completed steps I to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack""

So "shooting" is following the steps 1 to 5 as laid out on page 12. Those steps are.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot
2. Choose a Target
3. Roll to Hit
4. Roll to Wound
5. Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties.

You have to do each step in the shooting process and with the Impaler cannon you can do each and every step "regardless of whether there is line or sight or not". As allocating wound and removing casualties is part of the "shooting process", the blanket permission to do so without LOS applies. The rule "Out of Sight" is also in the Step 5. Unless you can separate it from the shooting process, you have permission to do each step without LOS.

Fragile wrote:
Impaler Cannon: ""The impaler cannon can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not.""

"can shoot". What does that mean in 6th? Page 12 gives that answer.

""The shooting process can be summarised in five steps, as described below""

""Once you have completed steps I to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack""

So "shooting" is following the steps 1 to 5 as laid out on page 12. Those steps are.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot
2. Choose a Target
3. Roll to Hit
4. Roll to Wound
5. Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties.

You have to do each step in the shooting process and with the Impaler cannon you can do each and every step "regardless of whether there is line or sight or not". As allocating wound and removing casualties is part of the "shooting process", the blanket permission to do so without LOS applies. The rule "Out of Sight" is also in the Step 5. Unless you can separate it from the shooting process, you have permission to do each step without LOS.

Well put sir...it's weird that people STILL try to argue against this clearly established and FAQ'd rule.

Yes, you have permission to reach step 5 without LOS.
Out of Sight is still not overridden.
You must take the rule into account since there is no rule saying you may not.
Since Out of Sight says, "If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends."

Regardless of being able to ignore LOS for the shooting attack (meaning you would be able to allocate wounds to models out of LOS) there are no visible models in the target unit. Nothing in the Impaler Cannon rules override this.

You are only applying half the Out of Sight rule and slightly out of context.

Out of Sight: ""If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends."

Impaler cannon directly conflicts with the first part of the first sentence of the OoS rule. It states that Wounds can be allocated to models that are OoS. At that point, the second part of the first sentence and the second sentence entirely are moot.

Why is the second sentence entirely moot?
I didn't apply the first sentence because the IC ignores it. There's nothing in the IC rules that grant vision to the target unit.

Out of Site messes with a lot of special abilities and weapons. Anything allowing you to shoot at something out of LOS in 5th will have no language to circumvent Out of Site as it didn't exist. How GW missed this as a problem is rather mind boggling. Don't they know how crazy we are when it comes to minutely interpreting rules?
The way I play it currently is that anything from a codex that says you can hit from our of LOS can also wound. This is not strict RAW, but a good example of RAI. GW clearly intends that these various weapons can kill something out of LOS. Why be tfg and wait until a FAQ gives the obvious solution?

Note that I still don't let blasts or templates to wound without LOS. Those all have updated rules in the basic book and deserve no special RAI consideration that special abilities from 5th do.